The
U.S. manned space flight programs were dealt a serious blow when
Obama announced plans to go back to the moon were being shelved due
to budget cuts and cost overruns. The budget cuts meant that the
Constellation program would be cancelled.

The outcry against
the President's plan was swift from space program supporters and
NASA. Obama quickly began to take steps to alter his plans and called
for the Orion crew module originally planned as the shuttle
replacement to be scaled back and used as a lifeboat for the ISS.
Obama had announced that he would talk
about his plans for NASA and the space program in Florida
earlier this week.

Obama has now aired
his plans, clarifying some points and helping to dress wounds
caused when he originally announced his plans for NASA. Obama's plan
still calls for a scaled back Constellation program that would see
the program continue, but only as a shadow of its former self. The
changes still mean thousands in the space industry will be left
jobless.

The shuttle fleet is set to retire this year with
only three more scheduled flights remaining for the fleet with the
last scheduled for September. Obama has promised additional funds to
allow NASA padding if a launch has to be rescheduled due to weather.
Some hope that the extra funds can instead be used to fund an extra
mission.

Once the shuttle fleet is retired, getting astronauts
to and from the ISS will be left to the Russian Soyuz spacecraft at a
cost of about $50 million per round trip.

Obama
sees the future of U.S. space flight in the hands of private
companies. Obama wants a new industry that will see private companies
offering transportation services to NASA rather than the vehicles
themselves.

Obama said, "The new plan is to harness our
nation's unparalleled system of free enterprise (as we have done in
all other modes of transport), to create far more reliable and
affordable rockets."

The San
Francisco Chronicle reports
that Obama foresees
manned missions to near Earth asteroids and perhaps even
Mars in his lifetime.

Obama said, "[By 2025 the U.S. will
have a new spacecraft] designed for long journeys to allow us to
begin the first-ever crewed missions beyond the moon into deep
space." He continued saying, "We'll start by sending
astronauts to an asteroid for the first time in history," he
said. "By the mid-2030s, I believe we can send humans to orbit
Mars and return them safely to Earth. And a landing on Mars will
follow. And I expect to be around to see it."

Obama said
of a return trip to the moon, "We've been there before."
Obama's plans for the space program still need the approval of
Congress. Many lawmakers still plan to fight to keep the jobs that
Obama's new budget will cut in their home districts. Obama's plans
would see 2,500 jobs added in the Florida "Space Coast" by
2012. Thousands will still be unemployed due to the budget cuts.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

No. We can get to Mars today without any basic research needed like we did in the Gemini days. There's a minor amount of engineering needed, and that's it. And we can do the engineering without actually making the trip.

95% of the money for a Phobos mission would simply be spent on actually building the hardware, launching it into orbit, and assembling for the mission. And we'd throw every bit of that hardware away after the mission. Most of it would simply be left on Phobos, never to be used again.

"We can get to Mars today without any basic research needed like we did in the Gemini days."

Using which spececraft? Launched by what booster? Not to mention that if that was true, why is it that no one has gone back to the moon already? The logistics should be a lot easier.

"95% of the money for a Phobos mission would simply be spent on actually building the hardware, launching it into orbit, and assembling for the mission."

That's pretty much what the constellation people said. They'll take existing hardware, make some modifications, and away we go. Didn't quite turn out that way did it? Do you honestly believe that the operational cost for such a mission would be only 5% of the budget? Seriously?!

"if that was true, why is it that no one has gone back to the moon already? The logistics should be a lot easier."

Thank you for proving my point for me. Just because we went to the moon before doesn't mean the infrastructure is there or the logistics any easier.

The same would be even more true of a trip to Phobos. A trip there now won't make a second trip appreciably easier or less costly.

" Do you honestly believe that the operational cost for such a mission would be only 5% of the budget? "

Is English your second language? I'm saying the exact opposite. Operational costs are the part you throw away. Whatever we spend on operational costs for one mission isn't going to save us a penny for a future mission that's actually useful.

I suggest you take a deep breath and reread the thread. Perhaps you've forgotten what the debate is even about? A trip to Phobos isn't going to make a future Mars mission appreciably cheaper, easier, or faster to accomplish. The vast majority of that will be simply thrown away.

"Thank you for proving my point for me. Just because we went to the moon before doesn't mean the infrastructure is there or the logistics any easier."

The infrastructure isn't there because we destroyed it! So what exactly did you just prove?

"A trip there now won't make a second trip appreciably easier or less costly."

If done in a short time frame of course it would. Because you'd have the boosters and spacecraft designed and built, the mission controllers and astronauts trained, and the engineers working. It all depends on the nature of the program... If you go once and then don't come back for another 20 years sure, but if you go every 2 years that's a different story isn't it.

Is English your second language?

Are insults all you've got?

I'm saying the exact opposite.

I'm not sure you even know what you're saying at this point. You said "95% of the money for a Phobos mission would simply be spent on actually building the hardware, launching it into orbit, and assembling for the mission."I'm saying this is nonsense. If that was true it would be fantastic! Because building the hardware and launching it into orbit is actually cheap compared to the operational costs. Recall that Apollo was officially cancelled because the operational cost was deemed too big, depsite the fact that the hardware was already built and ready to fly! Perfectly working saturn 5 rockets became museum pieces.

"A trip to Phobos isn't going to make a future Mars mission appreciably cheaper, easier, or faster to accomplish."

Of course it will! Most of the hard problems will have been solved, with only landing remaining. If you don't get that, you don't know what you're talking about.

"An easy example is the Apollo program...Expenditures peaked several years before even the first Apollo flight."

Lol, did you actually type that? Did you forget that what people today call "the Apollo Program" was actually Mercury-Gemini-Apollo. The first Mercury flight was in 1961. The Saturn V we used to get to moon we began building in 1963 .

And we were spending vast sums on non-development items starting in 1959 -- oh, you know, little things like the Kennedy Space Center and the Houston Space Center, which jointly had some 200-odd buildings, one of which was, when built, the largest building in the entire world?

- We began construction of buildings, facilities, and infrastructure STARTING in 1959- We had our first launch in 1959- We had our first man in space in 1961- We began building the Sat V in 1963.

By 1965-66, when spending peaked, we had already been doing more than just designing rockets for over half a decade. The design part is the cheap part. It's actually building all that hardware that costs so much.

You seem to be very confused about the term "development costs". NASA's development estimate for Ares included not just design costs, but building operational hardware. Again, that's where the money is spent. Do you actually not realize that we have already conducted flight tests on Ares? Yes, real rockets, soaring to suborbital heights. You really think we were spending $40B just on paychecks to engineers? Good god, man -- THINK before you type.

The one test flight of the Ares I-X rocket had almost none of the actual hardware other than maybe the avionics. None of the engines, nothing of the second stage, nothing of the capsule etc.

35 Billion for development costs and 12 years before the first flight. But you are unable to grasp that concept are you?

Your conjecture that development costs and timelines are a trivial part of a Mars mission is so obviously false that I'm not going to waste further time on the subject. It's clear your ego makes you incapable of ever acknowledge that you might be in error no matter how painfully obvious. I'm not interested in catering to your emotional needs since I believe I've already made my point clear enough to more rational readers.

Sigh. This is just total baseless nonsense with so many misconceptions.

Nobody that actually studies missions to Mars thinks we are currently capable of sending men to mars and having them survive the trip.

Development costs are an enormous part of the mission costs. The development cost for Ares V would have been something like $35 Billion. That's before you launch a single rocket.

The development of a deep space vehicle for Phobos is applicable to any other deep space destination.

A Phobos mission would actually not leave anything on Phobos other than instrumentation. The entire deep space vehicle would leave Phobos for the return trip to earth.

It is pointless to discuss this if you won't at least do some actual research to find out what is and is not possible. You are just guessing without actually knowing anything about the subject and it's counter productive.